4 ms·

Believe it or not, the alternative was much worse. In the US, the Civil War cost roughly $8 billion (in 1860 dollars) and 600,000 lives. There were roughly 4 mi

by altoz 12y ago

Believe it or not, the alternative was much worse. In the US, the Civil War cost roughly $8 billion (in 1860 dollars) and 600,000 lives. There were roughly 4 million slaves in the US at that time and using the New Orleans auction prices of that time you get an estimate of $2.7-$3.7 billion for the entire slave population of the United States. Basically, NOT compensating slaveholders cost more than twice as much and many more lives in the US. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40820/straight-dope-could-the-civil-war-have-been-avoided-by/ http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40820/straight-d...

dredmorbius 12y ago
Ah, but t'weren't t' North 'as started shootin': Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, a key fort held by Union troops in South Carolina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War Some transactions are more than strictly financial.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Sometimes the first bullet that flies is not the first shot of the war. Some scholars claim that the USA committed the first act of war well before the CSA opened fire on Ft. Sumter. Obfuscating the adversarial acts that occurred before battle is joined is a choice made by historians. I recall my history teachers teaching about the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts prior to Lexington and Concord, but somehow Fort Sumter started the Civil War? That situation would be a lot like petitioning for divorce, getting the house in the settlement, and coming home that night to find that your ex-spouse was still living in the garden shed. But I think it is safe to say that there were plenty of jerkfaces on both sides of the conflict, and they got a lot of good people killed, along with the bad. I can't say for certain what would have avoided the bloodshed, if anything, because we cannot A/B test history. I believe that war then was substantially similar to war now; it is usually a handful of people who stand to benefit, maneuvering other people into a false choice between losing and losing more. By the time the actual shooting starts, the bets have already been placed, and all that remains is to wait for the dice to stop rolling. It's nice that slavery was abolished in the whole USA in the aftermath of the war, but on the whole, the UK way of doing it was much better. If the worst aftereffect they are feeling now is some outstanding 4% consols, that's hardly worrisome at all, compared to the lingering legacies of abolition in the US.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    The deeper point is that the conflict wasn't strictly about property allocation, as was suggested by the comment I responded to. Instead it was a power play between two sets of states, not simply a matter of compensating former slave-owners. Which wasn't itself the nominal matter under discussion at the beginning of the Civil War in any regard (though the matter of slavery was in the offing, largely as pertained new states joining the Union). I'm also not arguing the that the Civil War was the best way of settling the dispute. I will note that in the case of the UK The point remains, however, that the Confederacy was the first aggressor.

by altoz 12y ago

dredmorbius 12y ago

Ah, but t'weren't t' North 'as started shootin': Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, a key fort held by Union troops in South Carolina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War Some transactions are more than strictly financial.

logfromblammo 12y ago
Sometimes the first bullet that flies is not the first shot of the war. Some scholars claim that the USA committed the first act of war well before the CSA opened fire on Ft. Sumter. Obfuscating the adversarial acts that occurred before battle is joined is a choice made by historians. I recall my history teachers teaching about the Stamp Act and the Intolerable Acts prior to Lexington and Concord, but somehow Fort Sumter started the Civil War? That situation would be a lot like petitioning for divorce, getting the house in the settlement, and coming home that night to find that your ex-spouse was still living in the garden shed. But I think it is safe to say that there were plenty of jerkfaces on both sides of the conflict, and they got a lot of good people killed, along with the bad. I can't say for certain what would have avoided the bloodshed, if anything, because we cannot A/B test history. I believe that war then was substantially similar to war now; it is usually a handful of people who stand to benefit, maneuvering other people into a false choice between losing and losing more. By the time the actual shooting starts, the bets have already been placed, and all that remains is to wait for the dice to stop rolling. It's nice that slavery was abolished in the whole USA in the aftermath of the war, but on the whole, the UK way of doing it was much better. If the worst aftereffect they are feeling now is some outstanding 4% consols, that's hardly worrisome at all, compared to the lingering legacies of abolition in the US.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  The deeper point is that the conflict wasn't strictly about property allocation, as was suggested by the comment I responded to. Instead it was a power play between two sets of states, not simply a matter of compensating former slave-owners. Which wasn't itself the nominal matter under discussion at the beginning of the Civil War in any regard (though the matter of slavery was in the offing, largely as pertained new states joining the Union). I'm also not arguing the that the Civil War was the best way of settling the dispute. I will note that in the case of the UK The point remains, however, that the Confederacy was the first aggressor.